ACA suvives again, lawsuit tossed due to lack of standing

[ExFlyBoy5]

I do know one lawyer who posts here - and has not shared a view on this decision. The rest of us are ... not lawyers.

I have no comment. SCOTUS opinions can be pretty difficult to read, even for us evil lawyers.

 

[Golden sunsets]

And 7 - 2 no less, from a 6-3 conservative court. This court does not want to be on the hook for eliminating a very popular program.

 

[Popeye]

Indeed. The majority opinion involves some very contorted and seemingly circular reasoning, mixing together the time period where the penalty existed with the time period now that it doesn't with issues of standing, severability, and Constitutionality. It sounds learned, but it also sounds convoluted and tortured to me.

Justice Alito's dissent, which starts on page 26 of the document linked in the OP, is far more straightforward and readable. It also cites from at least some of the same cases that the majority opinion does. His conclusion:

"No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats. A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. So a tax that does not tax is allowed to stand and support one of the biggest Government programs in our Nation’s history. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again.
But I must respectfully dissent."

Alito’s dissent sums it up for me. It was obvious from the beginning that no Roberts court will ever overturn this law. It was all a dog and pony show with the unwarranted fears stirred up for folks. Why did they sit on a 7-2, no standing ruling until the end of the term? I could see if they actually got into the merits but the timing raises other questions that are not relevant to the legality. Of course, that discussion would not last long!

 

[SecondCor521]

I’m not advocating for or against, just responding to some of the comments in this thread. The states may have ACA regulatory costs, but they are not related to the case before the court. They too needed to show harm resulting from the elimination of the mandate. 7 of the 9 justices agreed on this opinion, which is pretty high and denotes (IMHO) a pretty solid conclusion. I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll step back now.

I do know one lawyer who posts here - and has not shared a view on this decision. The rest of us are ... not lawyers.

Right. I haven't been to law school either. And this is complicated because it's somehow a side suit related to the original action, and it's related to at least two or three other high profile earlier ACA cases.

But there are two points I'd like to address:

First, the plaintiff states' regulatory harms are discussed in the opinion on this case - see the bottom of page 3 where they are discussed in the majority opinion and page 11 where they are detailed in the dissenting opinion. So they certainly seem like part of this lawsuit.

Second, the party needs to show harm from the law, not from the elimination of the mandate. So the law itself is the objection, not the 2017 change to the law. The argument is something like:

A. The 2017 elimination of the penalty is what the states are arguing makes the mandate unconstitutional (In the original NFIB decision, the penalty was what made the mandate Constitutional - see Alito's dissent pp 23-24.)

B. If the mandate is not severable from the rest of the law then the law is unconstitutional. (In NFIB, the federal government argued that the mandate was not severable and Ginsburg agreed and the SC decision there also concluded so - see dissent page 28.)

C. And if that is true, then the states have standing to ask for relief from the burdens of the unconstitutional law. States are not required to comply with unconstitutional laws, which the ACA case about expanded Medicaid is a recent example.

OK, I really don't want to argue this any further. Both of us are amateurs, and I think there are even plenty of professionals who have differing opinions (see the 7-2, I think all 9 of those are professionals ). I'll let you have the last word if you would like.

 

[GenXguy]

The mandate wasn't eliminated in 2017, but the penalty was set to $0. If the mandate had been eliminated, this particular lawsuit wouldn't have been filed.

 

[Texas Proud]

And 7 - 2 no less, from a 6-3 conservative court. This court does not want to be on the hook for eliminating a very popular program.

The only problem I have with this statement is that is not the job of the SC... it is to interpret laws and determine if they are constitutional or not...


Not saying that they did or did not bend to public pressure...

 

[audreyh1]

The mandate wasn't eliminated in 2017, but the penalty was set to $0. If the mandate had been eliminated, this particular lawsuit wouldn't have been filed.

It was possible to set the penalty to $0 with a much smaller majority as an add on to a different budget reconciliation bill than it would have taken to actually modify the ACA.

 

[GenXguy]

It was possible to set the penalty to $0 with a much smaller majority as an add on to a different budget reconciliation bill than it would have taken to actually modify the ACA.

But the point I was making is that the mandate wasn't eliminated - as was referenced a couple times prior to my post, not the legislative decision making process for why.

 

[Golden sunsets]

The only problem I have with this statement is that is not the job of the SC... it is to interpret laws and determine if they are constitutional or not...


Not saying that they did or did not bend to public pressure...

If rendering decisions that adhered to the law were reality(or that black and white) then it would not matter whether a SC scued right or left. There is a reason why both of our parties value naming a new Supreme Justice. In this particular case a super majority found a legal reason, (for the third time), to not overturn the law. My view of this decision is that the court did not want to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[EastWest Gal]

If rendering decisions that adhered to the law were reality(or that black and white) then it would not matter whether a SC scued right or left. There is a reason why both of our parties value naming a new Supreme Justice. In this particular case a super majority found a legal reason, (for the third time), to not overturn the law. My view of this decision is that the court did not want to be on the wrong side of history.

+1

I wonder who of them (justices if the SCOTUS) have relatives-children, nieces and nephews, now reliant on the ACA for their health insurance. Colleges now no longer offer student health insurance-a small fee I paid in medical school in the 1980s. They send students to the ACA.

 

[RetireeRobert]

I do know one lawyer who posts here - and has not shared a view on this decision. The rest of us are ... not lawyers.

One does not have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the US Supreme Court (though all current Justices are).

Many times non lawyers make the best cases.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Having a $0 Penalty has no "Harm" factor as the law suit suggested, and probably was what influenced the decision.

 

[Markola]

My view of this decision is that the court did not want to be on the wrong side of history.

Or maybe this time the 7 actually tried to live up to what they all say when they are nominated, which is that they are not an “activist judge” and just “want to call balls and strikes.”

 

[Katsmeow]

As a now very retired lawyer, this case to me was such a simple one regardless of one's opinion on the ACA as a policy matter. Lack of standing was absolutely glaring. Standing is one of those things that most people (i.e. non-lawyers) don't understand and is important. But, to most lawyers it is really important.

I am quite sure that Robert, Kavanaugh, Thomas and Barrett have no secret love for the ACA. However, to decide there was standing here would open the floodgates for many people challenging federal laws who have no standing. This is why you have those justices voting the way they did. They believe in traditional standing rules. They are not particularly fond of people challenging Federal statutes when they lack standing.

Alito's argument is essentially that you can challenge X part of a law where you are not hurt IF you are hurt by Y part of the law that you are not challenging. That is not how standing works. If you want to challenge X then you need to be hurt by X. If you are hurt by Y part of the law then you need to challenge Y part of the law. More to the point -- if you can challenge X because you are hurt by Y part of a law then you have vastly expanded the number of people and states that can challenge federal laws. Most of the court does not want to do that as it upends standing laws.

If states are hurt by other parts of the ACA, they are perfectly free to bring any legal challenge they want to bring to those parts. In reality, they know that they don't have valid legal challenges to those parts which is why they didn't do that.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

+1

I wonder who of them (justices if the SCOTUS) have relatives-children, nieces and nephews, now reliant on the ACA for their health insurance. Colleges now no longer offer student health insurance-a small fee I paid in medical school in the 1980s. They send students to the ACA.

They (members of the SCOTUS) all tend to live in a pretty tall Ivory tower.

Not only that, they all have gone to the absolute BEST law schools and none of them have worked in the criminal DEFENSE world which I think is a big problem.

 

[Aerides]

Colleges now no longer offer student health insurance-a small fee I paid in medical school in the 1980s. They send students to the ACA.

Right, but colleges don't have to offer insurance because parents can keep their kids on their employer plans until they are 26, instead of dumping them at 18 as it used to work.

That was another part of the ACA overall law, but doesn't require the student to go buy insurance on the exchange.

I think the idea that justices might be swayed to make decisions for what's best for them personally it a bit off, and we could probably look at any decision with that same lens...even the ones everyone agrees with.

It's easy to question (totally unknowable) motivations when we don't like a decision. Far less of us seem to raise questions, however, when they make a decision we endorse.

 

[Chuckanut]

Or maybe this time the 7 actually tried to live up to what they all say when they are nominated, which is that they are not an “activist judge” and just “want to call balls and strikes.”

Given that one judge was supposedly out to do away with ACA ( as claimed by opponents) and all of them were supposed to be hopelessly tied to one tribe or another, I would say they are doing well.

Having watched the Supreme Court over the past few years, one thing that stands out is how, despite all those pundits and experts who politicize everything, the court majorities often line up in 'interesting' ways. I believe it was Gorsuch who said even the 5-4 decisions had about 10 different combinations of judges. (See his interview on Firing Line).

All nine of them strike me as having a very strong independent streak, and that touch of arrogance I have seen on lesser judges when I was on jury duty. All-in-all, I prefer that to political bias. Overall, they are a breath of fresh air compared to Congress and the White House crowd since the 1990's. .

I do think our SC judges would love to see Congress and the President make better decisions and work out realistic compromises instead of relying on the Supreme Court to do the difficult work for them.

 

[Chuckanut]

Hmmm, could an executive order institute a $1 penalty?

Various federal judges have been tossing out executive orders for the last few years. Presidents have a way of over estimating their legal powers. Presidents get their power from the consent of the governed. They are not like Kings who rule by divine right. (Thanks Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Adams, etc.) Mr. Trump was overturned quite a few times, and Mr. Biden is now building up his count. Even if the current President could order a $1 penalty (unlikely because Congress eliminated it) the next one could eliminate it. That's no way to run a medical insurance system, or a country.

Executive orders used as short-term solutions to long term problems are questionable nonsense, IMHO.

 

[CardsFan]

Given that one judge was supposedly out to do away with ACA ( as claimed by opponents) and all of them were supposed to be hopelessly tied to one tribe or another, I would say they are doing well.

Having watched the Supreme Court over the past few years, one thing that stands out is how, despite all those who politicize everything, the court majorities often line up in 'interesting' ways. I believe it was Gorsuch who said even the 5-4 decisions had about 10 different combinations of judges. (See his interview on Firing Line).

All nine of them strike me as having a very strong independent streak, and that touch of arrogance I have seen on lesser judges when I was on jury duty. All-in-all, I prefer that to political bias. Overall, they are a breath of fresh air compared to Congress and the White House crowd (of any post 2000 election).

I do think our SC judges would love to see Congress and the President make better decisions and work out realistic compromises instead of relying on the Supreme Court to do the difficult work for them.

Well said.

While I don't agree with every decision made, I need to remember their job is NOT to decide what SHOULD be done, but to decide if WHAT was done was constitutional. No more, no less.